Elizabeth S. Dorner. Motivation of Undergraduate Student Employees in Academic Libraries. A Master's Paper for the M.S. in L.S. degree. April, 2011. 58 pages. Advisor: Barbara B. Moran

This study seeks to explore what motivates undergraduate student employees in academic libraries. The literature contains many anecdotal accounts of motivation programs and incentives employed in academic libraries but very few empirical studies concerning these employees. This study explored student employee motivation within the framework of self-determination theory: measuring levels of intrinsic motivation, internalized regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. A questionnaire was distributed to student employees at seven ARL member libraries. The questionnaire gathered demographic data and used the Motivation at Work Scale (MAWS) to measure their motivation. The study found that students showed higher levels of intrinsic motivation and external regulation, and while students' majors do not have a notable effect on their motivation, the task they perform at work does impact their motivation. The results of this study can be applied to design and implement more effective motivators and incentives for student employees in academic libraries.

Headings:

Student assistants/College and university libraries

Student assistants/Research libraries Surveys/Student

assistants Surveys/Intrinsic motivation Surveys/Personnel

MOTIVATION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT EMPLOYEES IN ACADEMICLIBRARIES

byElizabeth S. Dorner

A Master's paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Library Science.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

April 2011

Approved by

Barbara B. Moran

Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................................4Research Questions......................................................................................................................5

Literature Review.............................................................................................................................6Overview of Selected Work Motivation Theories.......................................................................6Motivation of Student Employees...............................................................................................8

Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation...................................................................................................................................................12Summary...................................................................................................................................................15

Methodology..................................................................................................................................17Selection of Method...................................................................................................................................................17Population...................................................................................................................................................18Sample and Sampling Method...................................................................................................................................................18Additional Sampling..............................................................................................................19Survey Administration...................................................................................................................................................20Instrument and Materials...................................................................................................................................................21Ethical Issues...................................................................................................................................................22

Results............................................................................................................................................24Response Rate...................................................................................................................................................24Demographic Profile...................................................................................................................................................25General Motivation Trends...................................................................................................................................................28Motivation and Major...................................................................................................................................................30Motivation and Task...................................................................................................................................................33

Discussion......................................................................................................................................37Research Questions...................................................................................................................................................37

Study Limitations...................................................................................................................................................39

Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................41

Implications for Supervisors...................................................................................................................................................42Directions for Future Research...................................................................................................................................................43

References......................................................................................................................................46

Appendices........................................................................................................................................................50

Table of Tables

Table 1. Results of ANOVA for Major and Motivation Level

........................................................................................................................................................

32

Table 2. Results for Scheffe Test for Major and Identified Regulation

........................................................................................................................................................

33

Table 3. Effect sizes (n2) of Scheffe Statistics for Major and Motivation Level

........................................................................................................................................................

33

Table 4. Results of ANOVA for Task and Motivation Level

........................................................................................................................................................

35

Table 5. Results of Scheffe Test for Task and Intrinsic Motivation

........................................................................................................................................................

36

Table 6. Results for Scheffe Test for Task and Identified Regulation

........................................................................................................................................................

36

Table 7. Effect sizes (n2) for Scheffe Tests for Task and Motivation Level

........................................................................................................................................................

36

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Library Responses...........................................................................................................24

Figure 2. Respondents by Sex........................................................................................................26

Figure 3. Respondents by Class.....................................................................................................27

Figure 4. Respondents by Age ......................................................................................................27

Figure 5. Average Response per Question.....................................................................................28

Figure 6. Average Subscale Scores................................................................................................29

Figure 7. Average Subscale Scores for the Three Academic Major Categories............................31

Figure 8. Average Subscale Scores for the Three Task Categories...............................................34

Figure 9. Boxplot Representation of Responses by Question........................................................55

Figure 10. Boxplot Representation of Responses by Subscale......................................................55

Figure 11. Boxplot Representation of Responses by Academic Major.........................................56

Figure 12. Boxplot Representation of Responses by Task Category.............................................56

Introduction

Undergraduate student employees have been a fixture in academic libraries since the

early 1900s (White, 1985). The scope of duties these student employees perform has expanded

over the last century and now many academic libraries employ large numbers of undergraduate

student workers to staff circulation desks, shelve or retrieve books and journals, assist patrons,

answer phones, and perform other routine but necessary tasks (Tolppanen & Derr, 2009). The

question remains, however, as to how to better motivate these employees to increase

productivity and performance. Motivation theory, according to the Gale Encyclopedia of

Psychology, "is concerned with the influences that govern the initiation, direction, intensity,

and persistence of behavior" (p. 440). For decades researchers have applied motivation

theories to work settings in an effort to explain the work habits, performance, levels of

satisfaction, and efficiency of employees. This research seeks to apply motivation theory to

undergraduate student employees in academic libraries.

Although a great deal of literature has been devoted to the motivation of librarians and

paraprofessional library workers, far less has been produced concerning the question of student

employees' motivation. Of the few articles that do address this unique group, most are

anecdotal accounts of incentive programs or other management techniques (e.g., Alder, 2007;

Chouteau & Heinzman, 2007; Burkey-Wade, 2007). Only one empirical study has thus far

been conducted on student motivation, specifically on the effects of certain motivators on

shelving performance (cf. Banks, 1991). Besides this study, there

7

appears to be no empirical research that has explored what motivates student workers and the

effects of incentives on their motivation and/or performance in tasks other than shelving.

Therefore, the following research questions are posed:

1. What motivates student employees? To what degree are they intrinsically

or extrinsically motivated?

2. Are student workers' academic interests (i.e. academic majors) related to

their motivation to do library work?

3. How is the task a student is performing (e.g. shelving, checking out

books, scanning) related to a student's level of motivation?

8

Literature Review

The goal of this literature review is to examine trends in work motivation theory and how

student employee motivation efforts have developed in relation to these theories. The first section

will trace the development of work motivation theory from its origins in behaviorism to its

current state. The second section will examine literature concerned with motivation of student

employees and other staff. The third and final section will examine one of the emerging theories

of motivation, self-determination theory, and how it is being applied in organizational motivation

research. Overview of Selected Work Motivation Theories

Motivation is an extremely large area of study that spans numerous fields including

management, psychology, education, and sociology. The number and variety of motivational

theories is overwhelming, even when limited to theories of work motivation, so only the most

basic theories and the theories with the greatest influence on studies in library settings will be

addressed in this review.

One early theory often applied to work settings was Maslow's Needs Theory (1943).

Maslow posited that humans have a variety of needs, some of which must be satisfied before

others may be satisfied. Basic physiological needs, such as for food, and water, must be

guaranteed before people can worry about the need for safety, which must be guaranteed before

people can address higher-level needs such as needs for love, esteem, and self-actualization

(Maslow, 1943). Although some argue that Maslow's

9

theory has been oversimplified and misused in practice (cf. Pinder, 2008), elements of this theory

still persist in modern work motivation theories.

Behaviorism, made famous by the work of researchers such as Skinner (Pinder, 2008), is

a theory of motivation that focuses on peoples' behaviors and their capacity to learn desired

behaviors based on environmental responses to various behaviors (Pinder, 2008, p. 428). Work

motivation in a behaviorist model would include providing employees with reward and

recognition for desired behaviors and punishing them for undesired behaviors. Elements of

behaviorism still exist in modern organizations in various forms (Pinder, 2008, pp. 426, 437).

Enthusiasm for behaviorism gradually waned, to be replaced by theories that hearkened back to

Maslow and considered the worker's whole being: thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, rather than

just his behavioral reactions to external stimuli.

In 1959, Hertzberg presented the motivation hygiene theory, based on his study of 200

engineers and accountants (Hertzberg, 1993). This theory proposes that various "hygiene factors"

in the environment, such as work conditions, salary and benefits, company policies, and the

interpersonal environment contribute to job dissatisfaction if the worker perceives unfairness in

these areas. Removal of these hygiene factors would only serve to reduce job dissatisfaction, not

induce job satisfaction and motivation, as had previously been thought (Hertzberg et al., 1993, p.

113). Instead, Hertzberg identified five separate concepts that lead to motivated, satisfied

workers: recognition, achievement, advancement, responsibility, and the characteristics of the

work (Pinder, 2008, p. 34). These conclusions formed the basis of concepts of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation

(Pinder, 2008, p. 82), since employees were affected by internal (intrinsic) feelings and

perceptions as well as by external (extrinsic) factors in the environment.

Many different theories and approaches came out of this initial discussion of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation (Pinder, 2008, p. 83ff). Among them is cognitive evaluation theory (CET),

10

which states that when people are intrinsically motivated to do a task, the application of some

types of extrinsic rewards can actually decrease their level of intrinsic motivation to perform the

task. Additionally, in order to feel intrinsically motivated in the first place, people must feel both

competent and autonomous in the performance of the particular task (Gagne & Deci, 2005).

CET's assertions about the effects of extrinsic rewards proved to be highly controversial since it

failed to take individual differences and context into account (Pinder, 2008, p. 86). Numerous

laboratory and field studies eventually cast enough doubt on some aspects of CET that it was

abandoned as a stand-alone theory (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Pinder, 2008). The ideas presented in

CET eventually gave rise to the more nuanced self-determination theory, which is discussed later

in this paper.

While CET has fallen out of favor in the scientific community, it is still evidence of the

continuing trend of focusing on the importance of workers' thoughts, feelings, and needs as well

as the work context, rather than simply focusing on punishments, rewards, and behavior.

Motivation of Student Employees

White (1985) provides the most comprehensive history to date of student employment in

academic libraries. Employing student workers was not a common practice until the early 1900s,

when university enrollments began to expand rapidly.

Librarians reacted differently to the hiring of more student employees: some viewed them simply

as cogs in the library machine, some valued and appreciated students as colleagues, and some

simply created a new category for student employees, somewhere in between a cog and a

coworker (White, 1985, p. 94). This unique group is now a permanent fixture in most academic

libraries, constituting an average of 21% of ARL libraries' workforces (Association of Research

Libraries [ARL], 2009, p. 64). In a recent study, Tolppanen and Derr (2009) conducted a survey

of 94 college and university libraries to ascertain the types of tasks their student employees

perform. Based on their responses, the researchers identified 19 core activities that student

11

workers perform, from checking out materials, shelving, and shelf-reading to answering phones,

assisting patrons, and maintaining equipment (cf. Tolppanen & Derr, 2009, p. 321 for a full list).

While librarians may have differing opinions with regards to student workers, the fact

remains that student workers are a unique group within the library's workforce. Oltmanns (1995)

points out that undergraduate student employees have the added burden of balancing work,

studies, and social lives while simultaneously transitioning into adulthood (p. 75). Unlike

graduate students or interns who are actively pursuing a job in a library-related field,

undergraduate employees may not be interested in libraries or the profession (Margalotti, 2004).

Not only that, most student employees are part-time workers, while many librarians and staff

work full-time. Add to this the significant age difference between student employees and the rest

of the library staff, and it becomes clear that student employees constitute a distinctive group

within academic libraries

(Oltmanns, 1995).

Given that student employees make up a unique, substantial portion of academic library

workforces and complaints are often voiced about student worker dependability and motivation

(Oltmanns, 1995), it is surprising that almost no empirical research has been performed on

student employee motivation. Banks (1991) provides the only example of an empirical study that

deals with motivating students in academic libraries. In her study, Banks explored the effects of

several different incentive programs on the shelving rates of student workers employed in five

academic libraries in Texas. Offers of raises, extended loan periods, and early release time failed

to produce a significant effect on shelving rates (Banks, 1991, p. 144). The incentives Banks

offered in these experiments were based on the suggestion of a single student and research on

workers in general, not student workers (pp. 135-6), suggesting that there is a lack of

understanding of what motivates student employees.

12

Far more common than empirical research about student employees are anecdotal

accounts of motivation efforts in academic libraries. In many cases, libraries do not have enough

resources to provide the rewards associated with a full-scale motivation program (Clark, 1995;

Burkey-Wade, 2007), so they may improvise with intermittent, low-cost motivation techniques.

Burkey-Wade (2007) conducted an informal survey of interlibrary loan departments in academic,

public, and special libraries to ascertain what types of motivational activities were being

implemented. The results indicated that supervisors employ many different motivational

techniques ranging from the traditional to the absurd: from giving time off, taking time for

adequate training, allowing for schedule flexibility, and encouraging involvement in the larger

organization to dancing, bringing in interesting newspaper articles, taking field trips, and having

salsa-making competitions

(Burkey-Wade, 2007, p. 143-144). Articles like these, which simply list tips for motivating

employees without any apparent order, organization, or evaluation, are evidence that supervisors

do care about employee motivation, but do not necessarily consider the concepts and principles

underlying these motivators.

Formal motivation programs have also been documented in the literature. As part of an

issue of The Journal of Library Administration dedicated to student employees, Clark (1995)

provided a summary of several motivation programs in place at university libraries across the

country. She describes recognition programs that include recognizing students with bookplates,

employee of the month programs, displays, and news releases (Clark, 1995, p. 89). Other libraries

focus on "career-oriented" incentives, rewarding senior students by allowing them to supervise

and train newer recruits, raising their pay, promoting them, widening their responsibilities, or

awarding scholarships (Clark, 1995,

p. 89-90).

13

Other libraries have adopted specific models from the business world, such as the FISH!

business model implemented at St Ambrose University Library in Ames, Iowa. The FISH! model

consists of four principles—Play, Make their Day, Be There, and Choose Your Attitude

(Chouteau & Heinzman, 2007). The Play principle involves motivation strategies similar to other

libraries' methods, namely creating a fun work environment by providing students with food,

prizes, and recognition as Students of the Month (Chouteau & Heinzman, 2007). The FISH!

model also incorporates elements of behaviorism by giving rewards based on students' shelving

accuracy and productivity (Chouteau & Heinzman, 2007).

Librarians at Brigham Young University in Utah have taken yet a different approach to

student motivation, explicitly using Maslow's needs theory to develop a program of motivation

that addresses social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs (Alder, 2007).

Activities such as team projects, public recognition, and providing opportunities for promotion

and acquisition of new skills were selected by soliciting student opinions about what motivates

them and aligning these opinions with Maslow's theory (Alder, 2007, p. 95). Some of these

motivational techniques move beyond simple extrinsic rewards and motivators and provide

opportunities for employees to use skills and perform tasks that are outside of their job

description. For instance, students with computer expertise may be recruited to design

presentations or run database reports, while artistic students are recruited to produce some of the

library's graphic

design work (Alder, 2007, p.98).

The ideas for these motivation programs have been drawn from a variety of sources,

including the corporate world, popular literature, informal surveys, and in some cases, simply the

imagination of the supervisor. Only in a few instances have supervisors explicitly applied

elements of motivation theory when dealing with their students. Recent research on motivation of

librarians and paraprofessional staff in academic libraries is being formed around cognitive

14

theories of motivation such as job satisfaction and commitment (e.g. Tella et al., 2007); even

informal motivation programs now include elements such as intrinsic needs, recognition, and

rewards, that reference theories of Maslow (1943), Hertzberg (1993), and others (e.g. Burkey-

Wade, 2007; Green et al., 2000; Kisby & Kilman, 2007). Clearly, then, the need exists for student

employees' motivation to be considered with the same care.

Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory of motivation that describes people's

motivation as being on a continuum from being amotivated (having no motivation at all) to being

extrinsically motivated (motivated by an external force) to being intrinsically motivated (doing a

task because they find it inherently interesting) (Gagne & Deci, 2005). The theory also posits that

there are different types of extrinsic motivation, some types that exert control over the individual

(such as rewards and punishments) and some types that allow for more autonomy (people

responding to extrinsic motivators because of their personal thoughts, beliefs, and personality)

(Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 336). This theory is also derived partially from Maslow's Hierarchy of

Needs (1943) in that it states that peoples' basic needs for competency, autonomy, and relatedness

must be satisfied before they can experience intrinsic or autonomous extrinsic motivation (Gagne

& Deci,

2005, p. 336-337).

As many have suggested (e.g., Latham & Pinder, 2005; Gagne & Deci, 2005), SDT is

still in its infancy and will require much more testing before it can be accepted into the work

motivation canon. So far SDT and principles of SDT have been studied in many contexts,

including in sports, medicine, and education, as illustrated by the following study. Deci, Koester,

& Ryan (1999) performed a meta-analysis of 128 studies that examined the effects of extrinsic

rewards on intrinsic motivation. Deci et al. concluded that in most of these situations the

hypothesis held true, namely that the application of extrinsic motivators detracts from people's

15

motivation to perform certain tasks. Because extrinsic motivators, in the form of praise, monetary

rewards, and other prizes are often used in the management of student employees (Banks, 1991;

Chouteau &

Heinzman, 2007; Burkey-Wade, 2007), it is important to determine if extrinsic motivation has the

same negative effect in the academic library context.

SDT is also increasingly being applied to work settings (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Sheldon et

al., 2003). In one such study, Kuvaas (2009) explored the relationship between intrinsic

motivation and employees' job performance using principles of SDT. In his study he selected a

sample of employees from three municipalities in Norway and distributed a survey with questions

related to motivators distilled from SDT, i.e. job autonomy, task interdependence, and supervisor

support. Respondents were also asked questions that measured their self-reported job

performance and intrinsic motivation. Kuvaas found that the presence of autonomy, competence,

and relatedness in a work environment increases intrinsic motivation, which is in turn linked to

better job performance (Kuvaas, 2009, p. 46). Studies like these have great implications for SDT's

validity in work environments.

Although SDT is a relatively new theory of motivation, a few of its characteristics make

it particularly suited to the context of student employees in libraries. Sheldon et al. (2003),

coming from a human resources management perspective, argue that SDT is particularly effective

in studying how individual characteristics of trainers and learners effect motivation (p. 377),

which is directly applicable to academic library settings, where student employees must be

trained for various tasks. Another facet of SDT that makes it particularly interesting in this

context is the fact that it accounts for people with a variety of different levels and reasons for

motivation. Student employees in academic libraries come from a range of backgrounds, so it is

likely that some employees may be intrinsically motivated because they wish to pursue

librarianship or a related field as a

16

career, while others may have no interest in the job besides their paycheck. Finally, SDT is

appropriate because it addresses different kinds of extrinsic motivators and their effects on

workers. Since extrinsic motivators of all kinds are used in student employee motivation (e.g.

Banks, 1991; Chouteau & Heinzman, 2007; Burkey-Wade, 2007), and many supervisors even use

the term "extrinsic rewards" and "intrinsic motivation" when describing their programs, it seems

apt to use a theoretical framework, such as SDT, that also employs these concepts. Summary of

the Literature

The role of undergraduate student employees in academic libraries has been expanding

over the past century and it is likely that student employees' roles will continue to grow as

libraries' budgets tighten. Until now, nearly all of the research conducted on library employee

motivation has centered on librarians and paraprofessional staff, despite the fact that students

perform so many different tasks in academic libraries (Tolppanen & Derr, 2009) and have a

fundamentally different outlook than librarians and staff (Oltmanns, 1995). While many libraries

have implemented student employee motivation programs, very few of them rely on motivational

theory. Theories of work motivation have evolved rapidly over the past century, beginning with a

focus on rewards, punishment, and behavior, transitioning to considerations of the workers'

internal needs, and finally developing into current theories such as self-determination theory

which address external and internal needs. Most documented student employee motivation

programs to date have focused on extrinsic rewards (e.g. Banks, 1991; Chouteau & Heinzman,

2007; Clark, 1995). In conducting this literature review it has become apparent that the progress

in work motivation theory has far

outpaced the progress in addressing student employee motivation and that there is a clear need for

empirical consideration of what motivates student employees using modern theories of

motivation such as self-determination theory.

17

Methodology

The following section will describe the methods, population, sample, procedure, and

plans for analysis for this study, which took place from February through March

2011.

Selection of Method

This study employs survey methodology to gather data. Survey methodology is often

used when soliciting "beliefs, opinions, attributes, and behaviors of respondents" (Wildemuth,

2009, p. 256), which is the basic aim of this study. Survey methodology is designed so that only a

small proportion of the population is required to draw conclusions about the larger population

(Wildemuth, 2009), which means that less time and fewer resources are required to gather data.

The use of a self-administered web survey instrument also minimizes the resources involved by

eliminating paper and mailing costs and allowing the survey to be administered to a wide

geographic audience without travel expenses (Wildemuth, 2009). Survey methods are also

efficient because they allow for the examination of multiple variables at once and can supply very

detailed information about each of these variables (Babbie, 1990, p. 42). Analysis of these

responses is even easier when only closed-ended questions are used (Wildemuth, 2009).

Survey methodology is appropriate for this research for a number of reasons. Survey

methods can also be used to describe subsamples within the sample (Babbie, 1990, p. 52), which

is appropriate for analyzing groups of student workers with a certain

18

trait in common. Using a self-administered web questionnaire was appropriate for this study

because the questions are simple, closed-ended, and the population of interest is generally

comfortable with computers. Additionally, the web-based format allowed the questionnaire to be

distributed to student employees at academic institutions throughout the country, which

facilitated more diversity in the sample and allowed a variety of different institutions and

workplaces to be represented.

Population

The population of interest in this study consists of undergraduate students employed in

academic libraries. For the purposes of this study the population has been narrowed further to

students employed in academic libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries

(ARL) because a wide variety of academic libraries are represented within this group and their

employment statistics are readily available. As of 2008, there were 7,293 full-time equivalent

student workers employed in ARL libraries (ARL, 2009, p. 62). For the purposes of this study it

is assumed that these part-time workers are employed on average ten hours per week, as was

found by Tolppanen and Derr's (2009) survey of student employees in access services (p. 315).

Based on this estimate, the population in question consists of approximately 29,172 individuals.

Sample and Sampling Method

Because student employees are so closely associated with their parent institutions, the

sample was selected using a single-stage cluster sampling technique. In single-stage cluster

sampling, individual clusters (groups of people or subjects such as classrooms, churches,

libraries, or other organizations) are selected out of the larger population; once

a cluster is selected, all of its members become part of the sample (Wildemuth, 2009, p.

119).

In this study, the clusters consist of ARL member libraries. Ten percent of ARL libraries

(n=12) were chosen systematically from a list of ARL libraries ordered from least number of

19

student employees to greatest number of student employees. Every 10th institution on the list was

selected, beginning with a randomly generated number. Once the libraries were selected, on

February 9, 2011, the director of each institution was contacted to seek permission to complete

the study and to distribute the survey to the student employees (see Appendix A). Either the

director or a contact person she/he designated then forwarded the link to the questionnaire to the

student employees at their institution (see Appendix B).

In order to encourage participation, respondents were offered the chance to enter a

drawing for eight $25 gift cards in exchange for participating in the study. Funding for this

incentive was provided by a Carnegie Grant through the School of Information and Library

Science at UNC. After respondents completed the questionnaire, they had the option of following

a link to a second questionnaire where they could submit their email address. These gift cards

were distributed in late March, 2011.

Additional Sampling. Because an insufficient number of responses was received after

the initial sample received the questionnaire, a second round of sampling was performed in the

same manner as the first: an additional ten percent of ARL institutions were systematically

selected and contacted on February 20, 2011.

Survey Administration

Once approval was gained from the directors of selected libraries, an email containing

the link to a Qualtrics™ survey was sent to these contacts at each of the participating libraries.

The contacts then forwarded the email to student employees.

The survey was open for a four week period between February 9 and March 7, 2011,

during which respondents could click on the link and submit their responses. The questionnaire

itself took approximately ten minutes to complete; Qualtrics™ does, however, allowed for

respondents to stop in the middle of the questionnaire and return later, should they desire to do

so.

20

While simply describing the motivation types and levels of these student employees is

part of the aim of this study, it was also necessary to do further analysis to achieve the other goal

of this study, namely to determine whether any characteristics of student workers are related to

their motivation. In order to perform these analyses, once the data was collected it was exported

to the statistical program SPSS for analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical

method often used when comparing differences between groups to determine if the differences in

the groups' averages are statistically significant (Babbie, 1990). Because this study seeks to

understand if different characteristics of student employees are related to motivation (for

example, how the motivation of those who are in library-related majors compares to those in

other majors) ANOVA was performed on the data to determine if these differences were

significant or just due to chance. The Scheffe Test is another statistical tool that is used in

conjunction with ANOVA. If ANOVA showed that there is a significant difference between

groups,

the Scheffe Test was used to determine between which groups, if any, there was a significant

difference (Walsh & Ollenburger, 2001, p.130). Instrument and Materials

The survey was constructed using Qualtrics™ survey software, which allows respondents

to respond online using a web browser. Results were automatically collected and stored by

Qualtrics™.

The survey instrument itself (Appendix D) consists of two sections. The first section

contains basic demographic questions that measure the independent variables of age, sex, year in

school, academic major, number of hours worked and the types of activities performed on the

job. The responses to these questions were analyzed to determine whether any relationship

existed between them and students' motivation. The second section consists of the Motivation at

Work Scale (MAWS). The MAWS is a twelve-question Likert-type scale developed by Gagne et

al. (2010) to measure the four variables derived from self-determination theory: intrinsic

21

motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. Intrinsic

motivation is motivation people feel because they enjoy the task they are doing. Identified

regulation is a type of extrinsic motivation where people do not inherently enjoy a task but are

motivated to do it because they have internalized certain values or identities that require this task

to be completed. Introjected regulation is another type of extrinsic motivation where people

internalize outside influences and feel pressured to perform tasks. The final type of extrinsic

motivation is external regulation, where motivation stems entirely from external forces such as

rewards or punishments (Gagne & Deci, 2005).

Participants were asked to consider the degree to which each of the twelve statements

correspond to the reasons they are doing their jobs; responses are on a seven-point scale ranging

from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very strongly). The first three questions are designed specifically to

measure intrinsic motivation, questions four through six measure identified regulation, questions

seven through nine measure introjected regulation, and the final three questions measure external

regulation (Gagne et al., 2010, p. 641-642).

In order to test the validity of MAWS, Gagne et al. (2010) conducted a survey of 1,644

Canadian workers in several fields. These workers were given the MAWS along with scales

measuring related concepts such as need satisfaction, perceived organizational support, work

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Once the data was collected, statistical tests such as

confirmatory factor analysis, invariance analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were

performed in order to test its validity (cf. Gagne et al., 2010, pp. 634-641). The researchers found

that results from MAWS corresponded with the results gained from the other scales; in other

words, MAWS's validity was confirmed in this case. Because MAWS is such a new instrument,

however, the researchers stress the need for it to be tested and applied in different situations with

different samples and variables (Gagne et al., 2010), which this study has attempted to do.

22

Permission to use the MAWS scale for this study was obtained from two of the creators of the

scale, Dr. Marylene Gagne and Dr. Jacques Forest. Ethical Issues

Any study dealing with human subjects must pay special attention to ethical issues that

may arise over the course of the study. Survey methods are generally low-risk in that they will

not cause physical harm and do not generally cause psychological harm,

although asking sensitive information may raise this possibility (Babbie, 1990). While

employment is sometimes a sensitive issue, the questions on the survey instrument deal only with

the students' opinions and facts about their employment, not with their performance. Any

additional concerns students have about providing employment information were minimized by

guaranteeing anonymity. The main ethical considerations for this study, then, revolve around the

voluntary nature of the study and the assurance of privacy and anonymity. In order to ensure the

privacy of the respondents, no identifying information was retained. The only personal

information that was gathered were the email addresses of respondents wishing to be entered to

win one of the inducement prizes; these email addresses were not associated with survey results

and were deleted immediately after the study was completed.

Because this study dealt with human subjects it was submitted to the University of North

Carolina's Institutional Review Board (IRB) for review. All study methods, procedures, and

materials were examined and approved by the IRB before beginning any of the study procedures.

23

Results

Response Rate

The survey was initially sent to 12 ARL libraries in early February 2011. Of these 12

libraries, five agreed to participate, two declined to participate, and three did not respond. One

library was interested in participating but was ultimately excluded because their internal IRB

process would have delayed their responses past the end date of this study; another library was

interested in participating but no longer employed any undergraduate assistants. After a week

only 89 responses had been gathered, so a second round of sampling was completed in late

February 2011. Of this second group of 11 libraries, two agreed to participate and nine did not

respond. In total, seven libraries, representing 5.6% of ARL libraries, participated in the study.

Overall 429 student responses were acquired, 359 of which were used in analysis. Forty-

four responses were excluded because the respondent was ineligible (i.e. because respondents

n=12

52%

No Response

Agreed to

Figure 1 Library Responses; n=23

24

were graduate students) and 26 responses were excluded because the survey was left blank.

According to the 2007-2008 ARL statistics, the seven participating libraries employ 481 FTEs of

student employees (ARL, 2009, pp. 56-62). If we assume that student employees work on

average 10 hours per week, then these seven libraries had 1,924 student employees in 2007-2008,

making the individual response rate of this survey 22.3%. This number should be viewed with

caution, however, as it is based on slightly dated statistics. In the wake of budget cuts it is very

likely that these libraries no longer employ so many student assistants and that the individual

response rate is somewhat higher than this estimate. Demographic Profile

Demographic characteristics of the 359 valid responses were analyzed to create a profile

of the student assistant workforce (see Figures 1-4). The sex distribution of respondents was

unequal, with 70% female and 30% male. All class ranks were represented in the sample, with

42% seniors, 26% juniors, 15% sophomores, and 17% first-years. The majority of respondents

(85%) were in the "traditional" 18-22 age range for undergraduate students, although student

employees in their late twenties, thirties, and even fifties were represented. Respondents worked

an average of 13.5 hours a week, ranging from just 3 hours a week to over 40. While at work

these employees were most often engaged in checking out/renewing/discharging materials (29%),

shelving (11%), pulling materials for interlibrary loan/document delivery (10%), or answering

directional/informational questions for patrons (10%). Almost twenty percent of respondents

specified that they most often performed a task other than the nineteen most-common tasks as

identified by Tolppanen and Derr (2009). These undergraduate students were engaged in a wide

variety of tasks ranging in difficulty and responsibility, including cataloging, developing and

25

teaching instruction sessions, web and database programming, book repair, scanning, and

research assistance.

26

Figure 4 Respondents by Age; n=358

General Motivation Trends

Figure 3 Respondents by Class; n=356

27

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement of the MAWS

instrument on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (exactly). Averages were calculated for each statement

and each three-statement subscale. The statements with the three highest averages were "Because

I enjoy this work very much" (x =4.24), "Because I have fun doing my job" (x =4.25) and "I do

this job for the paycheck" (x =4.54), indicating that both intrinsic motivation and the extrinsic

motivator of money were important factors for the group as a whole (See Figure 5). Responses

spanned the entire range of 1 to 7 on all questions (See Appendix F for boxplot representations of

the survey results).

Figure 5 Average Response per Question; 1=not at all, 2=very little, 3=a little, 4=moderately, 5=strongly, 6=very strongly. 7=exactly

28

Averages of the four subscales, each composed of three questions and relating to intrinsic

motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, or external regulation,

were also calculated (See Figure 6). The first three questions, the intrinsic motivation subscale,

averaged the highest agreement (x =4.15), indicating that student workers, on average, enjoy their

experience at work. Levels of identified regulation were low (x =3.17), meaning student workers

do not generally internalize the goals and values of their place of employment. Scores on the

introjected regulation subscale were the lowest (x =2.6), meaning students were not highly

motivated by controlling forms of motivation such as peer pressure, guilt, and maintaining

reputation. The external regulation subscale, consisting of the final three statements of the scale,

had the second-highest average agreement (x =3.73). These statements measure how extrinsically

motivated students are, how much they "act with the intention of obtaining a desired consequence

or avoiding an undesired one" (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 334).

1 2 3 45

Figure 6 Average Subscale Scores; 1=not at all, 2=very little, 3=a little, 4=moderately, 5=strongly, 6=very strongly. 7=exactly

29

Motivation and Major

Respondents represented almost 200 unique academic majors or programs, making it

difficult to analyze motivation trends of employees of specific majors. Instead, students' majors

and responses were coded as belonging to one of three categories: Arts and Humanities, Social

Science, or Math, Science, and Engineering. (Respondents with undecided or undeclared majors

were excluded from this particular analysis.) These categories were selected after examining the

reported majors of students and grouping them according to similar fields. Including a fourth

category of Health Sciences majors was briefly considered but the number of respondents with

Health Science majors was so small as to prevent proper statistical analysis; these respondents

were included in the Math, Science and Engineering group. Examples of Arts and Humanities

majors included Art, English, Philosophy, and various language and cultural studies; examples of

Social Science majors included Education, Psychology, and Sociology; and examples of Math,

Science, and Engineering included Biology, Chemistry, Statistics, Speech Pathology, and the

health sciences.

The average response for each of these categories is shown in the figure below. Social

Science majors had slightly higher scores of intrinsic motivation than the other two groups, while

Math, Science, and Engineering majors had slightly higher scores on the external regulation

subscale.

30

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then performed on the responses to determine

whether there were any significant motivational differences between the three types of majors.

The ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically-significant difference (p<.05) between majors

in the level of identified regulation. No significant difference was found in levels of intrinsic

motivation, introjected regulation, or external regulation, meaning that responses were fairly

similar across these subscales and any differences likely due to chance.

Figure 7 Average Subscale Scores for the Three Academic Major Categories; 1=not at all, 2=very little, 3=a little, 4=moderately, 5=strongly, 6=very strongly. 7=exactly

1 2 34

■Arts & Humanities

Social Science ■ Math,

Sci, Engineering

31

A Scheffe test was then performed on the data to determine between which groups these

significant differences occurred. As the ANOVA indicated, significant differences were found

between the three major groups' levels of identified regulation, specifically between the Arts and

Humanities group and the Math, Science, and Engineering group (labeled Majors 1 and 3,

respectively, in the following tables). The effect size for this Scheffe test was small (r|2=.026),

but comparable to the effect size of significant results found by Gagne et al.'s (2010) use of the

MAWS scale (p. 639).

Table 2 Results for Scheffe Test for Major and Identified Regulation

ldentitied_Regulation Scheffe

95% Confidence Interval

(1) Major (J) Major Mean Difference (I-J)

Std Error Sig.

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 1 352

.556 .053

.02 2 72

3 1 465*

549 .029

12 2 81

2 1 -1 352

556 .053

-2 72 .02

3 .113

543 979

-1.22 1.45

3 1 -1 .465

.549 .029

-281 -.12

2 -.113

543 979

-1.45 1.22

ANOVA Table

Table 1 Results of ANOVA for Major and Motivation Level

Mean Square F Sig.

lntrinsic_Motivation * Between Groups (Combined) Major

Within Groups Total1 287 16

607

077 925

ldentified_Regulation * Between Groups (Combined) Major

Within Groups Total70.746

16 370

4322 014

lntrojected_Regulation * Between Groups (Combined) Major

Within Groups Total11.252

17 747

634 .531

External_Regulation * Between Groups (Combined) Major

Within Groups Total23 860

12 190

1.957 .143

32

The mean difference is significant at the 0 05 level

Table 3 Effect sizes (n ) of Scheffe Statistics for Major and Motvation Level

Measures of Association

Eta

Eta Squared

lntrinsic_Motivation * Major 022

000

ldentified_Regulation * Major .161

026

lntrojected_Regulation" Major 063

.004

External_Regulation * Major .109

.012

Motivation and Task

As was the case with respondents' reported majors, respondents' reported tasks varied

widely. For this analysis, responses were separated into three categories based on the

respondent's primary job task: Manual/Repetitive, User Services/Education, and

Technological/Skilled. These categories were created after examining both Tolppanen and Derr's

(2009) nineteen tasks as well as the "other" tasks as reported by student

employees and grouping them by similar job functions, roles, and/or skills. Manual/Repetitive

tasks included checking materials out, shelving materials, scanning, and filing paperwork. User

Services/Education tasks included tutoring, instruction, staffing service desks, and answering

patron questions. The Technological/Skilled category included tasks such as cataloging,

programming, book repair, and website management.

The average subscale score for each of these categories is shown in the figure below.

Students who engaged in User Services/ Education tasks had the highest levels of intrinsic

33

motivation and external regulation, while students in the Technological/Skilled group had the

highest levels of both identified regulation and introjected regulation.

ANOVA was also performed to study the relationship between tasks performed on the

job and levels of motivation. The ANOVA revealed highly statistically-significant differences

(p<.01) in levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation.

Table 4 Results of ANOVA for Task and Motivation Level

ANOVA Table

Mean Square F Sig

lntrlnslc_Motivatlon " Task Between Groups (Combined)

Within Groups Total

8

7 849 15

628

5 621

004

ldentitied_Regulation * Between Groups (Combined) Task

Within Groups Total9

5.764 16

133

5 936

003

lntrojected_Regulation " Between Groups (Combined) Task

Within Groups Total2

7 263 17

310

1.575

209

Extemal_Regulation * Between Groups (Combined) Task

Within Groups Total1

4 646 12

379

1 183

308

Again, Scheffe Tests were performed to identify which groups differed most from one

another. Significant differences in intrinsic motivation occurred between those students engaged

in Manual/Repetitive tasks and those involved primarily in User Services/Education (Tasks 1 and

2, respectively, in the following tables). Significant differences were also found between levels of

identified regulation between Manual/Repetitive and User Services/Education as well as between

Manual/Repetitive and Technological/Skilled. No significant differences were found in either

introjected regulation or external regulation.

34

Discussion

Table 5 Results of Scheffe Test for Task and Intrinsic Motivation

lntrinsic_Motivatjon Scheffe

95% Confidence Interval

(1) Task (J) Task Mean Difference (I-J)

Std Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -1 807 .601 012 -328 -.333 1 521 828 .187 -3 56 .51

2 1 1.807 .601 012 .33 3.283 286 962 .957 -2.08 265

3 1 1 521 828 187 -.51 3562 -286 962 957 -2.65 208

The mean difference is significant at the 0 05 level

Table 6 Results for Scheffe Test for Task and Identified Regulation

ldentified_Regulation Scheffe

95% Confidence Interval

(I) Task (J) Task Mean Difference (I-J)

Std Error sig Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -1 595 611 034 -3 10 -093 -2 143* 841 .040 -4.21 -.07

2 1 1 595 .611 034 09 3 103 -548 978 855 -295 1.86

3 1 2 143 841 040 .07 4 212 548 978 855 -1.86 295

The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Measures of Association

Table 7 Effect sizes (n ) for Scheffe Tests for Task and Motivation Level

Eta Eta Squared

lntrinslc_Motivatlon * Task

181 033

ldentified_Regulation * Task

.186 .035

lntro)ected_Regulation * Task

.097 009

Extemal_Regulation" Task

.084 .007

35

Analysis of these general trends, ANOVA, and Scheffe Tests can be applied to answer

the research questions set out at the beginning of the study.

Question 1: What motivates these student employees? To what degree are they

intrinsically or extrinsically motivated? Based on the aggregated results of all respondents, it

appears that student assistants have high levels intrinsic motivation, motivation stemming from

enjoyment of the task at hand, and external regulation, motivation stemming from seeking

rewards or avoiding punishments. Although these two types of motivation are on opposite ends

of the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation spectrum, this pattern makes sense in the context of student

employees. Even those students who find intrinsic motivation in their jobs might also be

dependent on their paycheck for tuition and/or living expenses. As Oltmanns (1995) pointed out,

student employees have different priorities; many undergraduate students work simply to support

themselves while their first priority is school. Low levels of identified regulation also make sense

in the context of student workers. Very few of these students view their current job as an

important part of their career plans (only four students answered 7=exactly for the career plan

statement), and part-time workers may have different priorities and attitudes towards their jobs

than full-time workers (Banks, 1991, p.137).

Question 2: Are student workers' academic interests (i.e. academic majors) related

to their motivation to do library work? Based on the ANOVA analysis and subsequent Scheffe

Tests, it appears that students' academic majors play little role in how

36

motivated they are to perform library jobs. The Scheffe Test did reveal a slight difference

between Arts and Humanities majors and Math, Science and Engineering majors in terms of their

identified regulation, the motivation to do a task because it fits with one's personal values or

beliefs. This difference could be due to the fact that Arts and Humanities majors may be more

interested in a future career in libraries or feel more connected to libraries than Math, Science,

and Engineering majors. However, the effect size of this test was small (r|2=.026), meaning that

although the difference is statistically significant, the actual difference in motivation is not very

large.

Question 3: How is the task a student is performing (e.g. shelving, checking out

books, scanning) related to a student's level of motivation? Although it was not possible to

perform analysis of the motivation levels associated with each particular task, ANOVA and

Scheffe analyses did allow for the examination of significant differences in motivation between

students in different categories of tasks. These tests revealed that the tasks student employees

perform do have a significant impact on their motivation. Students primarily engaged in

Repetitive/Manual tasks (including the most commonly-performed tasks of shelving and

checking out materials) responded on average 1.6-2 points lower than students performing User

Services/Education or Technological/Skilled tasks (See Tables 5 and 6).

Gagne et al. (2010) similarly compared the motivation levels of workers employed in

four categories of jobs, each with increasing levels of autonomy: Technical/manual,

Sales/service, Health/education, and Management/Professional (p. 639). They found that workers

with less autonomy (Technical/manual workers) "were less identified. . .and intrinsically

motivated . . .than health/education workers [and]

managerial/professional workers." (p. 639). These results are consistent with the current study's

findings that students employed in Repetitive/manual tasks had lower levels of intrinsic

37

motivation and identified regulation than either the User Services/Education or

Technological/Skilled group.

Both the results of this study and those of Gagne et al. (2010) are consistent with the

hypotheses of self-determination theory. According to self-determination theory, tasks that allow

for little autonomy, competence, and relatedness (such as Manual/Repetitive tasks) will be less

motivating than tasks that allow people to feel independent, capable, and engaged (Gagne &

Deci, 2005). User Services/Education and Technological/Skilled tasks seem to provide

"satisfaction of basic psychological needs," which function as "the nutriments for intrinsic

motivation and internalization" (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 336). Given the positive relationship

between advanced, autonomous tasks and student motivation, supervisors may want to consider

varying or expanding the roles of their student workers to challenge and motivate them.

Limitations

While the results of this study are telling and some differences proved to be statistically-

significant, there are several limitations of this study. One of the limitations of this study is the

sampling method. Cluster-sampling, although the most appropriate method of sampling for this

study, "almost inevitably involves a loss of accuracy" (Babbie, 1990, p. 90) because of similarity

within clusters and the restriction of sample population, among other factors. The respondents of

this study came from only seven different institutions which may have very similar student

bodies or management styles that could have an impact on responses. The nature of cluster-

sampling also dictates that

some students were excluded because their institution was not selected or declined to participate.

The sample would then be further restricted to only those students who both received the survey

and elected to complete it.

Compounding this loss of accuracy is a loss of confidence. It is impossible to know the

exact size of the population of interest, the number of undergraduate student employees working

38

in academic libraries that are members of ARL. The size of the population was estimated from

the most recently-published employment statistics, making it difficult to be confident that the

sample size is adequate for inferring characteristics of the larger population. Due to the nature of

online surveys and the sampling method, it was also impossible to determine the exact response

rate.

Finally, although the MAWS has been shown to be valid in certain contexts (Gagne et al.,

2010), it is a relatively new measure that has not been evaluated in many different contexts and

situations. The results in this study proved to be similar to the results found by Gagne et al.'s

(2010) own study using MAWS; however, further studies that examine the relationship of

motivation levels of student employees with job performance or with levels of identification, etc.,

would be needed to further test the validity of the MAWS scale in this context.

39

Summary and Conclusion

This study examines what motivates undergraduate students employed in academic

libraries. From the literature review it was concluded that the subject of student employee

motivation, and even the subject of student employees themselves, have been neglected in LIS

literature. Of the many work motivation theories that have developed since the early days of

Skinner's Behaviorism, self-determination theory was chosen as a lens through which to study the

subject of student employee motivation. According to self-determination theory, people need to

feel adequate levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness to feel intrinsically motivated and

identified with the task at

hand (Gagne & Deci, 2005).

Based on a survey of 359 undergraduate students employed in academic libraries, it was

concluded that student employees in general show high levels of intrinsic motivation as well as

external regulation; many students who intrinsically enjoy library work are still dependent on a

paycheck to fulfill their primary roles as students. Although academic major did not appear to

have a significant effect upon students' motivation levels, the nature of the tasks that students

perform on the job did affect levels of motivation. Students employed in User Services/Education

or Technological/Skilled tasks appeared to be both more intrinsically motivated and more

identified than those students performing Manual/Repetitive tasks.

40

Implications for Supervisors

These results have several implications for library supervisors and managers who are

interested in the motivation of their undergraduate student employees.

First, supervisors should recognize the inherent enjoyment of library work. This study

reveals that, on the whole, student employees intrinsically enjoy their library jobs; if student

employees appear unhappy or unproductive, supervisors may wish to consider that perhaps it is

the work environment that is the real problem, not a lack of motivation. Offering extra training,

paying attention to the employee as a person, allowing for self-direction are some techniques that

may allow for feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness that SDT says will allow for a

healthy, motivating work environment (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 355).

Secondly, supervisors should strive to provide variety and challenge in day-to-day tasks.

While Manual/Repetitive tasks such as checking out books, shelving books, or scanning are

linked to lower levels of intrinsic motivation and identification, these tasks must still be

completed. Supervisors should experiment with techniques to cope with these tasks, such as job

rotation, extrinsic rewards, or assigning these tasks to a student employee who does intrinsically

enjoy performing them. Even simply acknowledging that these tasks are boring has been shown

to improve motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 355). This study has also shown that student

employees are performing a wide range of functions within some academic libraries. As

suggested by Alder (2007), supervisors should capitalize on the special talents of their students

and consider giving students challenging projects or tasks that may be outside of the traditional

set of tasks usually performed by student employees.

Thirdly, supervisors should ensure that student employees are being compensated fairly.

According to the results, student employees show a high degree of external regulation. Many

students are performing their jobs just for their paychecks, so supervisors should ensure, if

possible, that students are being paid a wage that is comparable to the wages of other jobs

41

available to undergraduates. Rewarding students with raises or other extrinsic rewards seems

likely to increase motivation and improve performance, as Banks (1991) found.

Finally, supervisors should encourage students to understand the role of libraries and

librarians. Respondents tended to report low levels of identified regulation, motivation based on

internalizing the values of the task at hand. Making sure that students know how vital their work

is to the library's functioning, and how vital the library's functioning is to the larger institution,

could help these students better appreciate the importance and values of their work. Additionally,

very few respondents in this study seemed to consider working in libraries as a career prospect.

Encouraging students who show particular interest or aptitude in library functions to consider

librarianship as a career is an excellent way to promote employee identification and recruit talent

to the

field.

Further Research Directions

This research has raised several issues that warrant further investigation. Although this

research suggests that students feel motivated by their paychecks, this study does not investigate

the link between pay and productivity as investigated by Banks (1991). Technology has changed

the library environment dramatically in the two decades

since Banks's study and current research about the relationship between monetary incentives,

motivation, and job performance is sorely needed.

Many of the "other" tasks specified by respondents fell outside of both Tolppanen and

Derr's (2009) 19 most-common tasks as well as the overall list of 85 tasks employed in their

survey (pp. 317-320). Advanced tasks such as website maintenance, programming, and even

cataloging are now being performed by undergraduate students in some academic libraries. The

exact reason for this expansion of roles and skills is unclear but warrants further investigation,

42

especially since several scholars have pointed out the "underutilization of student employees"

(Kathman & Kathman, 1978, cited in Banks, 1991) in the past.

While this research has shown that many menial tasks in libraries have a negative

association with motivation, the fact remains that these tasks must be performed. Further research

should be done to determine whether management techniques such as job rotation, pay raises,

training programs, etc. could help increase motivation and enjoyment while performing these

tasks.

Finally, although this study focused on undergraduate student employees, many academic

libraries employ a significant number of graduate students, many of whom are enrolled in library

or information science programs. Investigating the types of tasks performed by graduate students

and the motivation of LIS versus non-LIS graduate students is another research issue that could

add much to this conversation. Conclusion

Although student employees constitute a large portion of most academic library

workforces and perform a great deal of the tasks that make these libraries function, these

employees have been overlooked in the literature and the field of library and information science.

This research provides much-needed empirical evidence about this ignored group: insight into the

characteristics, tasks, and motivation of the workers that do some of the most mundane--but

essential--work in academic libraries. Understanding what motivates student employees will

hopefully assist supervisors design motivation programs and offer incentives that these

employees actually respond to. This research should be of great interest to library supervisors,

library administrators, and patrons of academic libraries, since these groups all stand to benefit

from the cost and time-savings that motivated employees can generate. Hopefully in the future,

improving the experience of student employees with proper management and motivation will

become an important consideration for all library professionals.

43

References

Alder, N.L. (2007). Retraining is draining: Motivating student employees to high performance

and longevity. Journal of Access Services, 5(1), 93-101.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Banks, J. (1991). Motivation and effective management of student assistants in academic

libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 14(1), 133-154.

Burkey-Wade, L. (2007). Motivating interlibrary loan and document delivery staff in times of

shrinking budgets: How to say yes with less. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document

Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 17(4), 135-147.

Castiglione, J. (2008). Facilitating employee creativity in the library environment. Library

Management, 29(3), 159-172.

Chouteau, C.A., & Heinzman, M. (2007). Gone fishing: Using the FISH! business model to

motivate student workers. Technical Services Quarterly, 24(3), 41-49.

Clark, C.K. (1995). Motivating and rewarding student workers. Journal of Library

Administration, 21(3/4), 87-93.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments

44

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological

Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and

work motivation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. Gagne, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.,

Aube, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The

motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 70(4): 638-646. Green, J., Chivers, B., & Mynott, G.

(2000). In the librarian's chair: An analysis of

factors which influence the motivation of library staff and contribute to the

effective delivery of services. Library Review, 49(8), 380-386. Hertzberg, F., Mausner,

B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1993). The motivation to work. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers. Kathman, M.D., & Kathman, J.M. (1978).

Management problems of student workers in

academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 39, 118-22. Kisby, C.M., & Kilman,

M. D. (2007). Improving circulation services through staff

involvement. Journal of Access Services, 5(1/2), 103-112. Kuvaas, B. (2009). A test of

hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among

public sector employees. Employee Relations, 31, 39-56. Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L.

(Eds.). (2009). ARL Statistics 2007-2008. Washington, DC:

Association of Research Libraries. Latham, G.P., & Pinder, C.C. (2005). Work

motivation theory and research at the dawn

of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-

396.

Margalotti, J. (2004). Utilizing student library assistants in university archives and

45

special collections. (Masters Paper). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Retrieved from

http://dc.lib.unc.edu/u?/s_papers,679

Oltmanns, G.V. (1995). The student perspective. Journal of Library Administration,

21(3/4), 63-76.

Pinder, C.C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Psychology Press. Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation of staff in libraries. Library

Management, 17(5), 31-35. Sheldon, K.M., Turban, D.B., Brown, K.G., Barrick, M.R., & Judge,

T.A. (2003).

Applying self-determination theory of organizational research. Research in

Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 357-393. Strickland, B. (Ed.). (2001).

Motivation. In The Gale encyclopedia of psychology (2nd

ed.) (pp. 440-441). Detroit: Gale. Tella, A., Ayeni, C.O., & Popoola. S.O. (2007). Work

motivation, job satisfaction, and

organisational commitment of library personnel in academic and research libraries

in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lpp.htm Tolppanen, B.P., & Derr, J. (2009). A

survey of the duties and job performance of

student assistants in access services. Journal of Access Services, 6, 313-323. Walsh, A.,

& Ollenburger, J.C. (2001). Essential statistics for the social and behavioral

sciences: A conceptual approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

White, E.C. (1985). Student assistants in academic libraries: From reluctance to reliance.

Journal of Academic Librarianship, 11(2), 93-97. Wildemuth, B. (2009). Applications of

social research methods to questions in

information and library science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Appendices

46

Appendix A: Contact Email to Selected Libraries

[Date]Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. [Director],

I am conducting a research study focused on what motivates undergraduate students working in academic libraries. Your institution was randomly selected from a list of the ARL member libraries to possibly participate in this study.

To participate in the study student employees would complete an online questionnaire (to be distributed by email). This questionnaire is composed of questions addressing students' motivation, the tasks they perform while working at the library, and some demographic questions that will be used to describe the respondents in this study. Completing the questionnaire should take no longer than 10 minutes. Students who wish to may submit their email address for a drawing for one of eight $25 gift cards as thanks for their participation.

If you are interested in your students participating in this study, I will send an email with a link to the survey to you (or someone you designate), which can then be forwarded on to your students. I will then send a reminder email approximately 7 days after the initial email is sent, which I will ask you to again forward to your student employees.

Thank you for considering assisting with this study. After the completion of the study I would be happy to share a copy my report with you, should you request one. Please note that this final report will contain only aggregate data.

Please let me know if you are willing or unwilling to forward information about the survey to your students by replying to edorner@email.unc.edu. Please feel free to contact me or my adviser, Dr. Barbara Moran (bmoran@email.unc.edu), with any questions.

Sincerely, Betsy DornerMasters Student, School of Information & Library Science University of

North Carolina, Chapel Hill email: edorner@email.unc.edu

Adviser:Barbara B. Moran, Louis Round Wilson Distinguished Professor School of Information

and Library Science 211 Manning Hall, CB 3360 University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, NC, 27599-3360

Tel: 919 962-8067 Fax: 919 962-8071 email: moran@ils.unc.edu

Appendix B: Contact Email with Link

Hello,

I am conducting a study about student workers in academic libraries. If you are an undergraduate student at least 18 years of age and employed in an academic library you are eligible to participate. You will have the chance to enter your email for a raffle for one of eight $25 gift cards to thank you for participating.

Please click on the link below if you would be willing to take this 10-minute questionnaire about your library job. Your participation is completely voluntary.

47

<QUALTRICS LINK>

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at edorner@email.unc.edu Thank you, Betsy

Dorner

Master's Student in Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill

Appendix C: Reminder Email with Link

Hello,

If you have already completed this questionnaire, please disregard this message.

This is a reminder to please consider taking this online survey about your library job. Itshould take only 10 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary.

<QUALTRICS LINK>

At the end of the survey you will have a chance to enter your email to win one of eight $25 gift cards.

Thank you, Betsy DornerMaster's Student in Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill

Appendix D: Survey Instrument

Motivation of Undergraduate Student Employees in Academic Libraries, IRB Study #11-0171

Principal Investigator: Betsy Dorner (edorner@email.unc.edu) Adviser: Dr. Barbara Moran (moran@ils.unc.edu)

Thank you for taking time to participate in this survey. The purpose of this study is to examine what motivates undergraduate student employees in academic libraries to perform their jobs. We are very interested in your answers!

This questionnaire is composed of questions related to your library job. Your participation is anonymous. You will not be asked to submit any identifying information in the questionnaire. All data obtained in this study will be reported as group data. No individual can be or will be identified. The only person who will have access to these data is the investigator. A copy of the final report (containing only aggregate data) will be made available to you or your library's administrators, if a copy is requested by emailing the investigator at edorner@email.unc.edu.

You are free to answer or not answer any particular question and have no obligation to complete answering the questions once you begin. Completing this questionnaire connotes your consent to be a participant in this study. Completion of the questionnaire should take no longer than 10 minutes.

You may choose not to be in the study or to stop being in the study before it is over at any time. This will not affect your class standing or grades at your institution. You will not be offered or receive any special consideration if you take part in this research. To thank you for your participation, at the end of this questionnaire you will have the opportunity to submit your email to enter into a drawing for one of eight $25 gift cards.

48

Clicking on the button below implies your consent to participate in this research. [BUTTON]

What is your: Age: _______ Sex: ______ Major/concentration: ________________________

Year in School (Check One): _____Freshman ____Sophomore ____Junior ___Senior ____Graduate

How many hours per week do you work in your library job during a typical week? ___________

Please indicate the 3 activities you perform most often in your library job. Drag the activity you perform most often into the top box, the activity you perform second-most often into the middle box, and the activity you perform third-most often into the bottom box. Please place only one choice in each box.

Check out/renew/discharge library materials

Shelve books and/or journalsSort and preshelve materials for shelving

Shelve other materials (media, unbound periodicals, reserves)Tidy the building (push in chairs, dust, etc.) Help patrons find items on shelves Maintain equipment (refill paper, printers, etc.)

Pull books and other items for interlibrary loan, document delivery, etc.Answer directional/informational questions for patrons

Answer telephones at a service desk

Tidy/straighten stacks or other collections Shelf-read

Assist staff with opening/closing building Check out/discharge interlibrary loan material

Retrieve items from book drop

Search for books and other items (lost, missing, etc.)

Assist patrons with photocopiers

Pick up materials from other buildings Oversee library detection gates and respond to alarmsOther (please specify):_______________________________Other (please specify):_______________________________

Other (please specify):_______________________________

3]

not at all

Because I enjoy this work very much 1

Because I have fun doing my job 1

For the moments of pleasure that this job 1

brings meI chose this job because it allows me toreach my life goals 1

Because this job fulfills my career plans 1

Because this job fits my personal values 1

Because I have to be the best in my job,

I have to be a "winner" 1

Because my work is my life and I don'twant to fail 1

Because my reputation depends on it 1

Because this job affords me a certainstandard of living 1

Because it allows me to make a lot ofmoney 1

I do this job for the paycheck 1ver modera

very^.eT^ a littlem o e r a strongly strongl exactlylittle tely

y

2 3 4 5 6 7

[BOX 1] [BOX 2] [BOX

Using the scale below, please indicate for each of the following statements to what degree they presently correspond to one of the reasons for which you are doing this specific job.

49

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7

We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.

To thank you for your participation, we would like to offer you the chance to enter into a

drawing for one of eight $25 gift cards. If you would like to enter the drawing, please follow the

link below. Your email address will not be associated with your responses to the questionnaire in

any way or be used for any purpose except to notify you in the event that you have won one of

the gift cards. If you do not wish to submit your email address,

simply close this window.

<QUALTRICS LINK>

Appendix E: Email Survey

Motivation of Undergraduate Student Employees in Academic Libraries, IRB Study #11-0171

Principal Investigator: Betsy Dorner (edorner@email.unc.edu) Adviser: Dr. Barbara Moran (moran@ils.unc.edu)

If you would like to enter into a drawing for one of eight $25 gift cards, please enter your email

address below. Your email address will not be associated with your responses to the previous

50

questionnaire in any way or be used for any purpose except to notify you in the event that you

have won one of the gift cards.

[TEXT ENTRY BOX] We thank you for your time spent

taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.

Appendix F: Boxplot Representations of Survey Responses

Figure 9 Boxplot Representation of Responses by Question

Figure 10 Boxplot Representation of Responses by Subscale

51

Iiiiimiic Mollified Bttrojectjed ExternalMotiwatiflrL EigqlatiorL Esgjiktio(rL regulation

Figure 11 Boxplot Representation of subscale Responses by Academic Major

Maima]/Rjepetitive □ User SeivJcesflMucation □ TecluiobgicaUSkilkd

Figure 12 Boxplot Representation of Subscale Responses by Task Category